Most fatal gun accidents involving young children in the United States involve reckless adult men who, very often, possess the gun illegally. It appears to be the same in Australia, where a three-year-old girl was shot and killed with an illegal sawed off shotgun, stored illegally, with illegally obtained ammunition, possessed by her father illegally. Needless to say, a member of their parliament immediately called for stricter gun control. From theaustralian.com:

The father of a three-year-old girl found with a fatal gunshot wound to her neck in western Sydney last night has been charged with breaking an apprehended violence order and a number of firearm offences.

Ali Mohammed Moussa, from Arncliffe, did not apply for bail when his charges were heard at Blacktown Local Court today, it was refused.

Officers investigating the death of the 43 year-old’s daughter allegedly found he had breached two AVOs, and had an unregistered and illegal firearm – a single-barrel sawn off shotgun – and was not keeping it secure.

An AVO in Australia is an Apprehended Violence Order, similar to a domestic Violence Restraining order in the United States. The father was also facing drug charges at the time of the shooting. It is uncertain who fired the sawed off shotgun. From msn.com:

The girl’s three young brothers, all aged eight and under, her parents and another family member were home at the time.

It is not yet known who fatally pulled the trigger.

The boys are being tested for gunpowder residue. It was initially reported that the three-year-old shot herself. Possible, of course, but unlikely with three older, young brothers in the room with her.

A far left member of parliament, from the Greens party, David Shoebridge called for a tightening of the gun control laws. From newsjs.com:

“It was only three months ago that the Coalition and Labor voted in Parliament to water down safe storage laws.

“The law used to provide that if any firearm wasn’t safety stored it was automatically confiscated, this is how the law should be. Parliament should urgently reverse these changes.”

Significantly, it was the head of police in New South Wales who pointed out the absurdity of Greens MP Shoebridge’s statement.

NSW Police Minister Troy Grant said: “There is no way to ensure the safe storage of an unregistered and prohibited firearm.

“This government is committed to ensuring individuals possess their firearms within the extremely strict and robust regime we have in NSW,” he said.

“Extremely strict and robust” is a good description of Australia’s gun laws. They may be the most restrictive that exist in the Anglosphere. England allows replica guns without a license. Most air rifles do not require a permit in England. Silencers are easily obtained in England. New Zealand does not require gun registration, and silencers are sold over the counter to anyone with money. Canada recently repealed their long gun registry.

Gun laws have slight effect on those who pay little attention to laws in general. It has not been reported if Ali Mohammed Moussa is affiliated with a radical mosque or a criminal gang, but it is the way to bet.

Call me crazy but I don’t make a distinction between legal and illegal firearms. Something isn’t morally wrong just because the government hasn’t given it a tap with a magic wand. After all, when the government declares firearms to be illegal, it is the duty of patriots to break the law

NSW Police Minister Troy Grant said: “There is no way to ensure the safe storage of an unregistered and prohibited firearm.”

So close, Troy! I’ll give you a B+. What you should have said is, “There is no way to ensure the safe storage of any firearm.” You can encourage safe storage, and even penalize those who violate whatever rules you set. But that still doesn’t ensure that any firearms will be stored according to your standards.

My thought exactly. Legally owned and registered firearms can be seized immediately if not properly stored, and the police can enter and search to assure compliance with the law. But how the heck is the government supposed to know about an illegally stored illegal firearm, which in any event will be seized immediately if it is used illegally? Sounds to me like the only reason that the laws are not strong enough for this minister is that it allows people to have them in the first place. Or in the alternative, that the law should be changed to allow the police to search any premises at any time without warrant for the purpose of verifying safe storage of legal firearms and the seizure of illegal ones. Big Brother is upon us.

MP David Shoebridge of the Green Party can call for all the gun control he wants in Australia’s parliament, but if the Prime Minister and his majority aren’t on board with it, it’s going nowhere.

As screwed up as it may seem sometimes, our form of government (executive branch, legislature and courts all with checks and balances on the other branches) is IMHO superior to the parliamentary form of government that some lefties occasionally call for in the U.S. I did a tour of duty in Canada and would occasionally spend some of my off-duty time sitting in the visitor gallery in the Canadian House of Commons in order to educate myself. It was a revelation to me and I quickly lost any illusions I’d had about the dignity and gravitas of government (if anybody likes sausage and respects the law, they should never watch either being made). Since I had the advantage of a high school education in which civics was still taught, I naturally compared ours with theirs. I learned that one of the big things about the parliamentary form of government is that the party that has a majority in the House of Commons forms the government, has almost unchallengeable power, and can pass damn near any law they want with little/no hindrance. The law does not have to go to an executive branch (a president) for approval, with the threat of a veto – once it’s passed, its the law. So the majority (the government) in a parliamentary system can ram through just about anything they want. Unlike in our country, the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons becomes the prime minister (leader of government) and his cronys become cabinet ministers and run the government. In Canada, the lower house (Commons) has all the power, while the upper house (the Senate – equivalent of the House of Lords in the UK) is a rubber stamp consisting of appointees that the government wants to reward, and not much real power. The courts (including the Supreme Court) are weak compared to ours and while they occasionally review laws that are challenged, they seldom overturn a law that the government passed. Thus, there were no “checks or balances.” There is also no constitution – the Canadian government was formed in 1867 by the British parliament through the British North America Act and that was not repatriated to Canada until the 1980s – laws that were passed by the Canadian Parliament sometimes had to be subjected to British parliamentary or royal assent before they went into effect. The Canadian Parliament (in the 1980s) passed a charter of human rights (kind of like our Bill of Rights, but without the gravitas), but there is nothing in it about bearing arms. Canada is a monarchy – Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and thus is Head of State – and she is represented by her Governor General – but the monarchy (like in the UK) is highly restricted and mostly ceremonial. If you’re still following all this, just know that things are not much different in Australia. Despite all its drawbacks, when I consider the alternatives, I am happy to be living in our constitutional republic with its form of government.

Don’t be suprised if the judge gives him less of a penalty because he wasn’t a licenced firearms owner and therefore couldn’t be expected to know that he needed to store his gun in an approved firearms safe… This has happened before in the NSW courts.

You should have seen the brief but furious anti-gun hysteria this caused until it was realised the following facts emerged:

– The accused was UNLICENSED.
– The accused possessed an unregistered firearm (obviously because they were unlicensed).
– The firearm was a shortened firearm, also referred in the firearms regulations as a “Prohibited Weapon”.
– The accused was hours away from facing court on drugs charges (therefore was “Known to Police”).
– The accused had previous convictions for mortgage fraud and money laundering (career criminal)?).
– The accused had breached AVO conditions TWICE! (An AVO is a reason to revoke a firearms license and seize firearms.)
– The firearm was not properly stored (but criminals cannot be expected the follow the law, despite protestations from progressives).
– The firearm was stored loaded (to quote Bugs Bunny, What a maroon!).

If the average mug uneducated prole can see this, why can’t journalists and MPs? When the news broke on Monday morning my first thoughts were: Unlicensed and Known to Police. And they were proved correct hours later.

And children will find almost anything no matter how well you hide it. My parents couldn’t hide anything from me.

that shottie in the pic is bogus…that’s from the late 1970s when “Chopper Read” tried to hi-jack a County Court judge….
guns are easy to make…
the problem in AUssie is getting the ammo…..
ARSE-stralia is a commie country run by sexually perverted freaks and Devil-worshipping free-masons…..
(nothing against free-masons generally…but….these are the worst of the worst) ☹
0zz won’t last much longer any-way…the Indo’ jihadis will invade and slaughter the dumb AUssies like sheep…they won’t even have a pointed stick to defend them-selfs with…..
most of the brain-dead bastards don’t deserve to survive any-way(s)!